MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152149429 · doi:10.4141/cjps2013-397

Cluster thinning as a tool to hasten ripening of wine grapes in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia

2014· article· en· W2152149429 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Kirsten Hannam, G.H. Neilsen, D. Neilsen, Pat Bowen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsThinningVineyardRipeningTitratable acidIrrigationWineHorticultureCropVineYield (engineering)Cluster (spacecraft)AgronomyViticultureWine grapeChemistryCultivarBiologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hannam, K. D., Neilsen, G. H., Neilsen, D. and Bowen, P. 2015. Cluster thinning as a tool to hasten ripening of wine grapes in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia. Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 103–113. Achieving fruit maturity can be a challenge on some Okanagan vineyards in some years. Cluster thinning is widely used to hasten ripening, but may not be effective on sites with balanced crop loads. In a Merlot vineyard in Summerland, BC, the effects of cluster thinning on juice soluble solids (an indicator of fruit maturity), yield and vine growth were examined between 2008 and 2011 across a range of treatments that manipulated the frequency and quantity of applied irrigation water. Cluster thinning increased juice soluble solids in 2 out of 3 study years and consistently increased cluster weights, but had few effects on juice pH, titratable acidity or yield. In 2 of 3 yr, correlation analyses showed that cluster thinning was most effective at improving the maturity of fruit with low soluble solids. Irrigation treatments did not have a consistent effect on juice composition but year-to-year variability was significant. Response ratios calculated from values reported in the literature show that cluster thinning in this region causes small but inconsistent improvements in juice soluble solids across a range of crop loads.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207